In recent days, Singapore has been discussing the salary levels of Government Ministers, the basic issue being: how much should they be paid so that the best talent can be attracted? The issue is important in itself, if viewed in terms of incentive and its link with attracting the best talent in any sphere of human activity. But this particular issue has a special relevance for our own country, not merely because of the general view that Ministers, both at the Centre and in the States, aren't paid well, given the scale of their responsibilities, but also because a vast majority of Ministers don't deserve even the little they are paid by way of a salary.

REMUNERATION

Linked to this is the question: should the monetary incentive given to Ministers be fully linked to the nature of their responsibilities which, undoubtedly, have serious implications for society in general? In other words, should the concept of public service — which plays a much greater role in the life of a politician than in that of professionals in the private sector and even in the Government sector — be linked to remuneration which one can compare with some other callings in the jobs market?

This is a difficult question to answer, particularly in a poor society like ours, which requires “special” people to solve seemingly intractable development issues through the medium of sensible legislation. The argument would probably run as follows: Ministers should be people with an exceptionally strong sense of public service, which should usually be free of the effects of the demand-supply mechanism as regards monetary remuneration.

Inevitably, this particular issue has also been considered in the course of the ongoing debate in Singapore, with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Teo Chee Hean, making the point that “having a passion for public service is not in itself sufficient to run a country well”. Apart from public service, some other qualities required for a Minister are “organisational and leadership capabilities, capacity to handle multiple responsibilities, ability to solve problems and take charge in a crisis, and the ability to hold their own with global leaders and further Singapore's interests.”

COMPARISON WITH SINGAPORE

Few will disagree with this list of requirements for aspirants to Ministerial positions, but the question is: how many of our Central and State Ministers will pass the test set down by Mr Teo? The short answer is, very few indeed. It will of course be argued that a fair comparison cannot be made between India and Singapore because the economic and social conditions prevailing in the two countries are vastly different, which is indisputably true. But does this mean that the divergence in the “operating conditions” has made it inevitable that political parties in India nominate an increasingly large number of candidates for the posts of legislators (and, therefore, contenders for Ministerial positions) who have criminal charges slapped against them in courts?

Interestingly, commenting on the Singapore debate, the Indonesian Vice-President, Mr Boediono, said that even though public service should be an important element in the mindset of Ministers, the latter have to be paid enough so that “there is no temptation to do what is not right”, adding, “If you want to get rich, don't join the Government”.

Is there any harm in trying to emulate the “Singapore system” in our own country? If the point is made that it would be impossible to do so, this will be comment enough on the hopelessness of the Indian situation — and that a million Anna Hazares won't be enough to bring about change in the right direction.

Related Topics